School of Social and Political Science

End of First Year Review Board

This section gives information on the PhD first year review process.

For information on the annual review form within EUCLID see the Annual Review system page:

PhD Annual Review system

Purpose of the review

The first year of a PhD is considered to be probationary, and is assessed by the End of First Year Review Board.

The Board is an opportunity to evaluate:

  • whether the candidate is capable of doing a PhD
  • whether the work is sufficiently developed, and of the required standard, to justify confirmation of PhD registration

The Review facilitates support and timely completion of the research by ensuring that students proceed only when they have acquired the necessary expertise.

The Review is a genuine hurdle, but the preparation provided by the Research Training courses, coupled with guidance from supervisors and PG advisor, provide the support needed.

Timing of the review

All full-time PhD candidates should have their review board within 9 to 12 months of enrolment on the PhD programme.

Occasionally it may take place slightly earlier, particularly if an MSc by research has been completed prior to  beginning the PhD.

Part-time students operate to the same timescale as full-time students, however they will not be expected to have made as much progress within this time.

Additionally there is the option to defer the progression decision and/or confirmation of registration to the second annual review.

Composition of the panel

The Review is carried out by a Board which normally consists of:

  • both supervisors
  • one or two 'external' examiners

These staff members will usually be from within the Subject Area/Centre.

The 'external' examiners should not have been involved to any significant extent, either academically or administratively, with the student.

The composition of the panel can vary slightly between subject areas, this can be confirmed with the Postgraduate Advisor for your Subject Area/Centre.

There is no formal University requirement for any of the examiners at a PhD First Year Review Board to be external to the School, although it could include someone from outside the School or the University, if appropriate.

Guidance

The University guidance is in section 3.2 of the Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students.  It lays out the process and explains what you should expect.

What is required

Research proposal

Around 3-4 weeks in advance of the board, you should complete your section of the online annual review form and submit a written full research proposal to the online system and email a copy to your Board members.

The proposal:

  • specifies the research question and locates it in the appropriate academic literature
  • fully elaborates the research design, methodology and anticipated contribution to knowledge
  • discusses ethical, political and practical issues
  • includes a timetable and a programme of work

As a guide, this should be around 12-15,000 words.

You must submit your report to Turnitin and advise your supervisor the similarity report is available for review, allowing enough time to have potential problems addressed before the Board meeting takes place . The similarity report must be sent to the board members prior to the meeting.

Please ensure you discuss this requirement with your supervisor in a timely manner to ensure the report is available.

In addition to submitting the proposal in advance of the meeting of the Board, you may choose to make a short oral presentation.

Ethics self-assessment

Students should also complete, or have in progress, an ethics self-assessment in conjunction with their supervisors, and the process should be integrated into their First Year Review Board. Self-assessment is conducted via an online ethics form and draft applications can be saved as a PDF to share with supervisors and submit to the Review Board. Once finalised, the ethics form is submitted for approval. Details of the 3-level approval approach to ethical approval are given in Point 5.1 of the PhD Handbook.

Review meeting

The meeting discusses the proposal – asking questions, giving constructive feedback and making suggestions.

It may last for up to 2 hours, to allow enough time for a full assessment of the work, of the student, and of the supervisory team.

Possible outcomes of the review

After the review meeting, the Principal and/or Lead Co supervisor will complete their section of the online annual review form and upload the minute and/or report of the review board meeting.

This report makes clear the recommendation and the basis of the decision. This report is confirmed by all members of the review board, including the student.

Information on the recommendations available to the review panel are available in the Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students and the Postgraduate Assessment Regulation for Research Degrees, and outlined below.

Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for Research Degrees:

Extract from the Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for Research Degrees:

Regulation 14 | Annual progression review recommendation

(a) confirmation of registration, for example for PhD, MPhil;

(b) a repeat progression review must be undertaken within three months before confirmation of progression;

(c) for part-time students only for the first progression review: deferment of the confirmation decision to the second annual review;

(d) registration for a different research degree such as MPhil or MSc by Research;

(e) registration for a postgraduate taught degree (for example MSc) or diploma can be recommended if the student has undertaken the coursework for that qualification;

(f) exclusion from study.

Where a serious problem is identified or discontinuation is considered, the Review Board will normally write a report stating where the proposal is deficient and explaining what work needs to be done to bring the proposal up to the required standard.

A second review will be arranged at which the student has the chance to present a revised proposal.

Outcome 14(b)

If the outcome of the annual review is 14(b) then the three month period starts from the date of issue of the progression decision to the student.

The outcomes of a repeat are the same as for the initial review, with the exception of 14(b) - only one repeat review may be undertaken.

If the Review Panel still finds that the student has not met the required standard, then discontinuation will be recommended.

Section 3.2 of the University Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students outlines the procedures in full.

Administrative procedures

After the board review you should ensure that you have:

Any queries regarding the administrative procedures can be directed to the PG Research Support Team.